“IS-LM (with endogenous money)”

Paul Krug­man post­ed on a famil­iar top­ic yesterday—the fail­ure of most infla­tion hawks to admit that they were wrong—and includ­ed praise for one such hawk who has indeed changed his mind and said so:

There’s an inter­est­ing con­trast with one of the real intel­lec­tu­al heroes here, Narayana Kocher­lako­ta of the Min­neapo­lis Fed, who has actu­al­ly recon­sid­ered his views in the light of over­whelm­ing evi­dence. In our polit­i­cal cul­ture, this kind of switch is all too often made into an occa­sion for gotchas: you used to say that, now you say this. But learn­ing from expe­ri­ence is a good thing, not a sign of weak­ness. (“A Tale of Two Fed Pres­i­dents”)

If this was all there was to the arti­cle, I would have fin­ished the (as usu­al) enjoy­able read, and moved on to the next link from Twit­ter. But then there was this state­ment:

Look, some of us came into the cri­sis with a more or less ful­ly formed intel­lec­tu­al frame­work — extend­ed IS-LM (with endoge­nous mon­ey) — and sub­stan­tial empir­i­cal evi­dence from Japan…

Huh? “extend­ed IS-LM (with endoge­nous mon­ey)”??? Paul has of course exposit­ed on and pro­mot­ed IS-LM many times in the past. But “with endoge­nous mon­ey”? Nor­mal­ly this is some­thing he has derid­ed. In the past, his per­spec­tive has been “IS-LM with Loan­able Funds”, not “with Endoge­nous Mon­ey”.

Now I could be read­ing too much into this phrase. As Nick Rowe said in the very intel­li­gent and civ­il dis­cus­sion on his excel­lent post “What Steve Keen is maybe try­ing to say”, the phrase can mean dif­fer­ent things to dif­fer­ent peo­ple:

Paul could mean some­thing quite dif­fer­ent to what I mean by “endoge­nous mon­ey” too, and I could be read­ing far too much into this sin­gle phrase (heck, it could even be a typo!). But if he is shift­ing his posi­tion in the “mon­ey and banks don’t mat­ter” and “mon­ey and banks are cru­cial” debate, even a lit­tle, that’s some­thing to be applaud­ed in pre­cise­ly the same man­ner in which he praised Kocher­lako­ta for mov­ing on infla­tion. And if not—if he meant some­thing entire­ly dif­fer­ent to the inter­pre­ta­tion I put on that statement—well then doubt­less we’ll find out. We’ll sure­ly get a clar­i­fi­ca­tion in due course.

What­ev­er that clar­i­fi­ca­tion turns out to be, this unex­pect­ed phrase has moti­vat­ed me to pub­lish, ahead of sched­ule, a mod­el com­par­ing Loan­able Funds to Endoge­nous Mon­ey that I promised to pro­vide in the dis­cus­sion on Nick­’s blog:

If the lender is a non-bank, then the repay­ment of a debt lets the lender spend because both debt and loan are on the lia­bil­i­ty side of the bank­ing sys­tem’s ledger; but if the lender is a bank, then the repay­ment of the loan takes mon­ey out of cir­cu­la­tion (I pre­fer that expres­sion to “destroys mon­ey”) because the debt is on the asset side of the ledger. That’s the essen­tial dif­fer­ence between Loan­able Funds & Endoge­nous Mon­ey, which I’m try­ing to illus­trate in a pair of very sim­ple mod­els that I’ll post on my blog shortly—and link to Nick­’s dis­cus­sion here. (A com­ment by me on Nick Rowe’s post)

I have since devel­oped that pair of mod­els; there’s much more analy­sis need­ed before I’m will­ing to pub­lish an aca­d­e­m­ic paper on the top­ic, but here’s what I think is the sim­plest pos­si­ble mod­el con­trast­ing Loan­able Funds—in which banks, mon­ey and (except dur­ing a liq­uid­i­ty trap) pri­vate debt don’t mat­ter to macroeconomics—and Endoge­nous Money—in which banks, debt and mon­ey are cru­cial to macro­eco­nom­ics at all times.

A monetary model of Loanable Funds

My start­ing point is Krug­man’s descrip­tion of the essence of lend­ing as being a trans­fer between Patient and Impa­tient agents:

Think of it this way: when debt is ris­ing, it’s not the econ­o­my as a whole bor­row­ing more mon­ey. It is, rather, a case of less patient people—people who for what­ev­er rea­son want to spend soon­er rather than later—borrowing from more patient peo­ple. (Paul Krug­man, 2012, pp. 146–47. Empha­sis added)

In the New Key­ne­sian mod­el of a liq­uid­i­ty trap that he and Eggerts­son devel­oped (Gau­ti B. Eggerts­son and Paul Krug­man, 2012), lend­ing was for the pur­pos­es of con­sump­tion, and while there was debt, there were nei­ther banks nor mon­ey:

My mod­el of Loan­able Funds embeds this vision of lend­ing as being a trans­fer from Patient to Impa­tient agents in a mon­e­tary mod­el of the economy—one in which all trans­ac­tions involve the trans­fer of mon­ey in bank accounts—and one in which “Patient agents” and “Impa­tient agents” are both cap­i­tal­ists, who need mon­ey to hire work­ers and also buy inputs from each oth­er. Though the bank­ing sec­tor exists in this mod­el it is entire­ly pas­sive: it is just where “Patient agents” deposit their cash, and lend­ing is seen as a trans­fer from the deposit accounts of the Patient agents to the deposit accounts of the Impa­tient agents.

I also treat lend­ing as being pri­mar­i­ly for pro­duc­tion rather than con­sump­tion. Both Patient and Impa­tient agents are cap­i­tal­ists who need mon­ey to hire work­ers and buy inputs for pro­duc­tion (as well as for con­sump­tion) from each oth­er. The basic finan­cial oper­a­tions are:

An ini­tial deposit of 90 by the Patient agents and loan to the Impa­tient agents of 10, both of which are stored in bank accounts;

Lend­ing by the Patient Agents to the Impa­tient Agents;

Pay­ment of inter­est;

Repay­ment of the debt;

Hir­ing of work­ers by both groups of agents;

Con­sump­tion by all agents from both Patient and Impa­tient.

The oper­a­tions are shown below in Table 1, fol­low­ing the con­ven­tions in the Min­sky pro­gram that assets are shown as pos­i­tives, lia­bil­i­ties and equi­ty are shown as neg­a­tives, the source of any flow is a pos­i­tive and its des­ti­na­tion is a neg­a­tive: these con­ven­tions ensure that all rows have to sum to zero to be cor­rect in account­ing terms (the pro­gram also sup­ports the account­ing approach of using DR and CR).

Loans them­selves don’t turn up on the bank­ing sec­tor’s ledger because they are trans­fers between the Patient and Impa­tient agents. Instead loans are assets of the Patient agents and a lia­bil­i­ties of the Impa­tient agents. Table 2 shows Loans from the Patient agents’ per­spec­tive, while Table 3 shows the same oper­a­tions from the Impa­tient agents’ per­spec­tive.

The Min­sky pro­gram (click here for the lat­est beta build) is pri­mar­i­ly designed for numer­i­cal simulation—and I’ll get to that shortly—but it also gen­er­ates the dynam­ic equa­tions in the mod­el, and they are instruc­tive enough for those who don’t suf­fer the MEGO effect (“My Eyes Glaze Over”) when look­ing at equa­tions (if you do, skip most of this and just check the sim­u­la­tions below). The equa­tions of motion of the key accounts in this mod­el (click here to down­load the mod­el) are shown in Equa­tion . The first four equa­tions describe the dynam­ics of mon­ey in this mod­el; the last equa­tion describes the dynam­ics of debt.

The key points from these equa­tions are:

The total amount of mon­ey in the sys­tem is the sum of the four accounts Impa­tient, Patient, Work­ers and NWBank (for “Net Worth of the Bank­ing sec­tor”, which is zero in this mod­el), and this does­n’t change: the sum of the first 4 equa­tions is zero:

The total amount of mon­ey in the firm sec­tor is the sum of the first two accounts—Patient and Impatient—and the annu­al turnover of this amount is the annu­al GDP of this mod­el. It is unaf­fect­ed by lend­ing, repay­ment and debt ser­vice, so GDP is also unaf­fect­ed by lend­ing, repay­ment and debt ser­vice:

Endoge­nous Mon­ey pro­po­nents, on the oth­er hand, insist that most lend­ing is not between non-banks, but from banks to non-banks, and that this makes all the dif­fer­ence in the world. That is eas­i­ly illus­trat­ed by mak­ing just 3 sim­ple changes to this mod­el:

Lend­ing is shown as being a flow from Banks to Impa­tient Agents;

Inter­est pay­ments go not from Impa­tient to Patient but from Patient to the NWBank; and

When the mod­el is sim­u­lat­ed, lend­ing is relat­ed to the cur­rent lev­el of lend­ing rather than to the amount of mon­ey in the Patient Agents’ accounts.

So what dif­fer­ence did these sim­ple struc­tur­al changes make? A lot.

A monetary model of Endogenous Money

The mon­e­tary sys­tem from the bank­ing sec­tor’s point of view is shown in Table 4: Loans are now an asset of the bank­ing sec­tor, while lend­ing, repay­ment and debt ser­vice are all rela­tions between the Impa­tient agents and the bank­ing sec­tor. The dif­fer­ences of this mod­el with Loan­able Funds are high­light­ed in bold in the Table (click here to down­load the mod­el).

There are three sig­nif­i­cant ways in which this mod­el dif­fers from Loan­able Funds:

The total amount of mon­ey in the sys­tem is, as before, the sum of the four accounts Impa­tient, Patient, Work­ers and NWBank (for “Net Worth of the Bank­ing sec­tor”, which is not zero in this mod­el), and this now is altered by the change in debt:

The total amount of mon­ey in the firm sec­tor is the sum of the first two accounts—Patient and Impatient—and the annu­al turnover of this amount is the annu­al GDP of this mod­el. It is also altered by lend­ing, repay­ment and debt ser­vice, and there­fore so is GDP:

Final­ly, the dynam­ics of debt in this mod­el are the same as in Loan­able Funds, but now this is also iden­ti­cal to the dynam­ics of the mon­ey sup­ply:

I sim­u­lat­ed the mod­el for 250 years with con­stant para­me­ters (it took that long for the debt to GDP ratio to sta­bi­lize at 0.32), and then repeat­ed the exper­i­ment of a slump in lend­ing fol­lowed by a boom and then a return to nor­mal­i­ty. The results in Fig­ure 2 shows how dif­fer­ent an Endoge­nous Mon­ey view of the world is to Loan­able Funds.

First­ly, in Endoge­nous mon­ey, the growth of debt is not macro­eco­nom­i­cal­ly neuteal but caus­es GDP to grow: rather than the change in debt being irrel­e­vant to the macro­econ­o­my as in Loan­able Funds, in Endoge­nous Mon­ey it alters the lev­el of demand. Sec­ond­ly, alter­ations in the rate of change of debt had dras­tic effects on the econ­o­my: a decline in lend­ing caused a slump and an increase in lend­ing caused a boom.

Fig­ure 2: Sim­u­la­tion of Endoge­nous Mon­ey

IS-LM and Endogenous Money?

If—and it’s a big if—this phrase sig­ni­fies a shift in how Krug­man mod­els IS-LM, then it will sure­ly mean some­thing very dif­fer­ent to what I’ve shown above. For starters, it’s like­ly to be an equi­lib­ri­um mod­el, when as Nick Rowe right­ly con­clud­ed, my sto­ry is a dis­e­qui­lib­ri­um one (some­thing that Hicks argued long ago can’t be done with IS-LM—see (John Hicks, 1981)):

We are talk­ing about a Hayekian process in which indi­vid­u­als’ plans and expec­ta­tions are mutu­al­ly incon­sis­tent in aggre­gate. We are talk­ing about a dis­e­qui­lib­ri­um process in which peo­ple’s plans and expec­ta­tions get revised in the light of the sur­pris­es that occur because of that mutu­al incon­sis­ten­cy. (Nick Rowe)

Of course, it could sig­ni­fy no more than a rebadg­ing of Krug­man’s estab­lished approach—or even a typo. We’ll have to await an elab­o­ra­tion. But I do hope that it does sig­ni­fy a fur­ther thaw­ing in the rela­tions between ortho­dox econ­o­mists and those from the non-ortho­dox end of the spec­trum after Nick Lowe’s recent con­tri­bu­tion.

Nick’s post—a reminder

As I acknowl­edged in “An out­break of com­mu­ni­ca­tion”, Nick­’s post accu­rate­ly stat­ed my argu­ments on the cre­ation of aggre­gate (or effec­tive) demand via the cre­ation of mon­ey by loans from the bank­ing sys­tem to the pub­lic:

So with that very big caveat under­stood, here’s what I think Steve Keen is maybe try­ing to say:

Aggre­gate planned nom­i­nal expen­di­ture equals aggre­gate expect­ed nom­i­nal income plus amount of new mon­ey cre­at­ed by the bank­ing sys­tem minus increase in the stock of mon­ey demand­ed. (All four terms in that equa­tion have the units dol­lars per month, and all are refer­ring to the same month, or what­ev­er.)

And let’s assume that peo­ple actu­al­ly realise their planned expen­di­tures, which is a rea­son­able assump­tion for an econ­o­my where goods and pro­duc­tive resources are in excess sup­ply, so that aggre­gate planned nom­i­nal expen­di­ture equals aggre­gate actu­al nom­i­nal expen­di­ture. And let’s recog­nise that aggre­gate actu­al nom­i­nal expen­di­ture is the same as actu­al nom­i­nal income, by account­ing iden­ti­ty. So the orig­i­nal equa­tion now becomes:

Aggre­gate actu­al nom­i­nal income equals aggre­gate expect­ed nom­i­nal income plus amount of new mon­ey cre­at­ed by the bank­ing sys­tem minus increase in the stock of mon­ey demand­ed.

Noth­ing in the above vio­lates any nation­al income account­ing iden­ti­ty. (Nick Rowe)

This is, from my per­spec­tive, the essence of the sig­nif­i­cance of Endoge­nous Mon­ey. If this was­n’t true—if the cre­ation of new mon­ey by the bank­ing sys­tem did­n’t some­how impact on actu­al income and demand—then by Occam’s Razor, there would be no macro­eco­nom­ic sig­nif­i­cance to Endoge­nous Mon­ey, and we’d be bet­ter off ignor­ing the bank­ing sec­tor in macro­eco­nom­ics, as the mod­el of Loan­able Funds does. Nick pro­vid­ed an excel­lent ver­bal state­ment of this—and a log­i­cal argu­ment behind it which I think any econ­o­mist should be able to fol­low, regard­less of his/her school of thought:

Start with aggre­gate planned and actu­al and expect­ed income and expen­di­ture all equal. Now sup­pose that some­thing changes, and every indi­vid­ual plans to bor­row an extra $100 from the bank­ing sys­tem and spend that extra $100 dur­ing the com­ing month. He does not plan to hold that extra $100 in his chequing account at the end of the month (the quan­ti­ty of mon­ey demand­ed is unchanged, in oth­er words). And sup­pose that the bank­ing sys­tem lends an extra $100 to every indi­vid­ual and does this by cre­at­ing $100 more mon­ey. The indi­vid­u­als are bor­row­ing $100 because they plan to spend $100 more than they expect to earn dur­ing the com­ing month.

Now if the aver­age indi­vid­ual knew that every oth­er indi­vid­ual was also plan­ning to bor­row and spend an extra $100, and could put two and two togeth­er and fig­ure out that this would mean his own income would rise by $100, he would imme­di­ate­ly revise his plans on how much to bor­row and spend. Under full infor­ma­tion and ful­ly ratio­nal expec­ta­tions we could­n’t have aggre­gate planned expen­di­ture dif­fer­ent from aggre­gate expect­ed income for the same com­ing month.

But maybe the aver­age indi­vid­ual does not know that every oth­er indi­vid­ual is doing the same thing. Or maybe he does know this, but thinks their extra expen­di­ture will increase some­one else’s income and not his. Aggre­gate expect­ed income, which is what we are talk­ing about here, is not the same as expect­ed aggre­gate income. The first aggre­gates across indi­vid­u­als’ expec­ta­tions of their own incomes; the sec­ond is (some­one’s) expec­ta­tion of aggre­gate income. It would be per­fect­ly pos­si­ble to build a mod­el in which indi­vid­u­als face a Lucasian sig­nal-pro­cess­ing prob­lem and can­not dis­tin­guish aggregate/nominal from indi­vid­ual-speci­fic/re­al shocks.

So at the end of the month the aver­age indi­vid­ual is sur­prised to dis­cov­er that his income was $100 more than he expect­ed it to be, and that he has $100 more in his chequing account than he expect­ed to have and planned to have. This means the actu­al quan­ti­ty of mon­ey is $100 greater than the quan­ti­ty of mon­ey demand­ed. And next month he will revise his plans and expec­ta­tions because of this sur­prise. How he revis­es his plans and expec­ta­tions will depend on whether he thinks this is a tem­po­rary or a per­ma­nent shock, which has its own sig­nal-pro­cess­ing prob­lem. And these revised plans may cre­ate more sur­pris­es the fol­low­ing month. (Nick Rowe)

About Steve Keen

I am Professor of Economics and Head of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston University London, and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous private debts accumulated globally, and our very low rate of inflation.

Video overview

Debunking Economics II

Disclaimer

This site does not give personal financial advice. The focus of this blog is economic analysis, and how you interpret this with respect to your own financial decisions is entirely up to you.

Steve Keen, Debtwatch, and any employees or associates will not be held liable for any losses resulting from decisions taken by any individual or entity as a consequence of reading materials on this blog.

Membership or sponsorship of this blog does not constitute purchasing any product service apart from those listed in the membership and sponsorship conditions.